PCS Notice to Keeper Millenium Parking Services

Coupon-mad

Manney_T wrote: »

Hi I have received a "notice to keeper" letter through the post on Sat 18.3.2017 from a private company Parking Solutions ltd.
They say I was issued a Parking Charge Notice on 9.1.17 .
I never received this plus I live on the land where they allegedly said I did this "contravention " of not displaying my permit.
Suddenly 69 days after this so called issue I have been asked to pay £100 before 28 days !!
Why am I paying when I have not received anything prior and that I have always had a permit and own the flat outside where my car was left .

Please help.

You just posted right under my signature which tells you where to click...:)

See my signature beneath all my posts, not sure how much clearer I can make it.

Loadsofchildren123

SR06 wrote: »

Hi Loadsofchildren123,

I'm at Aurora. Thanks for sharing this with me. I've sent my defence off now and just about to fill the directions questionnaire.

Did you get any further with this?

Sorry I missed this. My hearing is next week. Here's my skeleton which contains some interesting arguments about planning consent and illegality, and about the MPS-MDES argument. I've played around with it a bit since I did this one, just to tidy it up. You might find some of this useful for your Witness Statement. Also my document on POFA and BPA CoP breaches (they were a member of BPA at the date of the parking event in my case but of course aren't any more).


https://www.dropbox.com/s/ybqnmy5v37ci3p1/SKELETON%20anonymised.docx?dl=0


https://www.dropbox.com/s/k5djmx5o1et4xc3/POFA%20REBUTTAL.docx?dl=0


https://www.dropbox.com/s/k5djmx5o1et4xc3/POFA%20REBUTTAL.docx?dl=0


My case concerns Sirius. I've noticed that all signs have been removed from there, but not the rest of the Copper Quarter. Any idea why? Also I've read that in November 2015 (?) Millennium were kicked off Copper Quarter after so many residents complained. Do you know anything about that?

Loadsofchildren123

And have you checked the landowner? I spent the princely sum of £3 with Land Registry checking the landowner of Sirius Apartments and it was NOT the company that had signed the parking contract. It was then sold to an unconnected company in mid 2014.
In fact, the party that signed the contract wasn't the landowner at any stage.
it's all in my Skeleton.
I think you should get evidence of who owns it from Land Registry. Phone them up, they are very helpful.

SR06

Hi all,

We have received a letter from Gladstones containing the Particulars of Claim. I'm happy to post it on here if appropriate? It has statements on the Contract, Registered Keeper, Claim of Interest, and Claim for Costs. The evidence attached is a scan copy of the parking signs in Aurora. They've only attached a copy of Permit Holders Only (We have a ticket for no permit displayed and one for exceeded max stay period).

Thanks Loadsofchildren for sending me those documents. I will read through those today (the first link is not found). Is it too late to add the MPS-MDES argument? I will check if they were still a member of BPA at the date of the parking events.

What needs to be included in the defence that I send back to the court? Do I include a witness statement from me saying that the car was parked in my spot, etc.?

Many thanks in Ad

Loadsofchildren123

new link to my skeleton
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qjzj1n3sguuz7yo/SKELETON%20final%20anonymised.docx?dl=0

Loadsofchildren123

Regarding the MPS/MDES argument:
technically speaking, too late. HOWEVER, they should have produced the landowner contract to you during the pre-action phase under paras 6(a) and (c) of the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct. The entire point of those obligations is so that defendants understand exactly what case is being brought and the core documents being relied on. Had they complied, you would have seen the landowner contract and would have seen that it was signed by MPS.


In addition, Millennium is supposed to have fully particularised its claim in the Particulars in the Claim Form (Rule 16.4). By now providing this information now, in their evidence, when it should have been in the Claim Form, means that they are effectively amending their Particulars. This is a clear attempt to circumvent Rule 16.4 (not providing clear particulars in the first place) and Rule 17.1(2) (you cannot amend a claim without permission once it has been served).


They should not be allowed to get around the rules in this way, but they are.


So, what I would do is deal with the issue in your WS if it hasn't already been served. Add the MPS/MDES stuff, and say as follows:
"To the extent that any new matters have been included in this Statement which are not dealt with in the Defence, I ask the court to take into account the following:
1. the Particulars of Claim were extremely brief, did not state the cause of action, did not specify what contract was relied upon (if a breach of contract was claimed, which it now appears is the case) and made it impossible for me to submit a full and proper defence. This was in breach of Rules 16.2 and 16.4 and paragraphs 7.3 and 7.5 of Practice Direction 16.
2. Matters were exacerbated because in addition to failing to particularise the claim in the Claim Form/Particulars of Claim, the Claimant also failed to comply with paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct.
3. It is only now, in its Witness Statement, that the Claimant has particularised its claim and has produced a copy of the contract it claims was formed with the driver, and a copy of the contract with the landowner, on which it relies on in asserting its rights to issue parking charges.
4. Effectively, this means that the Claimant has amended its Particulars of Claim without making any application (which it should have done pursuant to Rule 17.1(2).
5. It would be contrary to the rules of natural justice for the Claimant to behave in this way and for me to be denied the opportunity to respond to the new matters raised by the Claimant in its Witness Statement.
6. I therefore ask that the new matters contained in this Statement are treated as being part of my defence of the claim. I am of course a litigant in person, whereas the Claimant is represented by solicitors who act for a number of different private parking companies and they issue and pursue thousands of these types of claims and should know and comply with the court rules.


I'm not sure the MPS/MDES point will work. But try it anyway. ]


I think the better point to add (if you didn't include it anyway) is in relation to the landowner contract. I've seen it already because it was the one produced in my case. There were two clauses in there (I think it was 3 and 4 of the T&Cs) which said that Millennium was authorised to issue pcns to cars that were reported to it as being unauthorised by the landowner, and the other clause provides for the landowner to report cars to Millennium. So I say the contract only allows Millennium to ticket cars that are reported to it. So you want to point that out and you want to write to Gladstones and ask them to provide evidence that the landowner reported the car. Otherwise you say they weren't entitled to issue a pcn to it at all.


Also the contract was made with a Barratt subsidiary, but it was a different company than the one that had originally owned the land, so the contract was not with the landowner. so I say that Millennium were nothing more than trespassers on the site at the time the pcn was issued in my case. And there is case law saying that a subsidiary cannot claim the rights of its owner, they have to be formally passed from one company to another. So I said that the contract was worthless.


In addition, by the time of my parking event the land had been sold on to a Guernsey company and so even if the contract had originally been valid, it no longer was once the land had changed ownership. You need to phone land registry and find out who owns the land - you ask for Official Copy Register Entries and you pay £3 for them. It's money well spent. In my case the land changed hands before the pcn.


All these arguments are set out in full in my Skeleton, which you can crib from.


These are important arguments to run and you are entitled to run them in response to their WS. If they argue that you are trying to add points to your WS you rely on what I've said above.

Loadsofchildren123

Just checking - you are referring to Particulars and Defences here - but I know you are post-DQ stage so I am assuming what you are referring to is the Claimant's Witness Statement and your WS. Or am I missing something?

Loadsofchildren123

BTW Millennium withdrew the day before my hearing. They wrote 2 days before "offering" to settle for £150 and I told them where to go and 24 hours later they withdrew.

Loadsofchildren123

I'm also a bit confused about what they are suing you for.


You say that you weren't the driver. But you are RK and if the NtK was valid under POFA then you can be liable as keeper, even if you later name the driver.


You were originally confused about what the ticket actually related to - son parking in his own space or parking in a visitor's space (again by son) - is this right? Has their WS clarified what the complaint actually is? Was it your son parked there both times? Or son in his space and you in visitor space?


What you want to focus on as your best and primary argument is the tenancy argument - son had rights to the space. They cannot come along after your son is already a tenant/owner and impose new parking conditions on him when he already has the rights. You must demonstrate in the WSs (in son's is the most logical) that son has those rights. If he's a leaseholder then the rights will be in the lease and he must exhibit that to his WS. If he's a tenant, then the rights must either be in his tenancy agreement (and again he must produce this) or if the tenancy is silent then he must get his landlord/the estate agent to confirm IN WRITING that the tenancy includes sole rights to the space, that the space is part of the leasehold land owned by the landlord and explaining that this was not mentioned in the tenancy but was an oral term agreed at the time it was signed, and explaining why it was missed out of the written tenancy agreement (eg. the landlord may have bought an off the shelf tenancy from WHSmith for £10, or the estate agent may have used its precedent that didn't mention parking spaces and they forgot to add it). I think it's also better to produce the lease as well to prove that the landlord had those rights in the first place - if landlord can't help with that then pay Land Registry for it, it's money well spent.


If the complaint is visitor parking then likewise you need to show that son was granted rights to parking for visitors that were not restricted in the way the Claimant now asserts.

SR06

Got a court date and the deadline for the WS 11th.

Started to write the WS and we've also received theirs.

Wondering what people think about the evidence they've submitted.

In the OP, it was mentioned about the piece of paper attached to the windscreen that the grounds keeper had written for with the management company's details on it. They've included this as part of their evidence, with who ever took the photo holding it in their hand. Is it worth including in the WS that we tried to avoid getting a ticket by placing this notice on the vehicle's screen?

And for the PCN received in the visitors bay, the two time stamps on the photos they've taken of the vehicle are 17:40 and 19:25 the next day. How does that prove exceeded the max stay of 24 hours? The vehicle could have left the visitors bay at 18:00 and returned say 19:00 the next day.

Anyone got any thoughts on this? And can I use the evidence they've provided in their WS as arguments in my WS?